Analyse the constitutional basis and limits on the state's use of force against peaceful protestors under Article 19.

Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) guarantee free expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms — the constitutional foundation of protest [1]. The state may restrict, not extinguish, this right; force against peaceful assembly is therefore a limited, procedurally fenced exception, not a routine policing tool.

Constitutional basis of the right

• Article 19(1)(b) protects assembly; Article 19(1)(c) protects associations — together they make collective dissent a fundamental right, enforceable under Article 32 [1].
• The Supreme Court in In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) held the midnight eviction of sleeping protestors an abuse of power, and ordered action against erring police [2].

Constitutional limits on the right

• Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India and public order [1].
• Statutory operationalisation: BNSS, 2023 (Sections 148–151) allows dispersal of an unlawful assembly by civil force only after a command to disperse, with graded escalation [3].

Limits on the state's use of force

• Proportionality and necessity: in Anita Thakur v. State of J&K (2016) the Court held that where an assembly is peaceful, use of force is not warranted at all, and awarded compensation for police excess [2].
• Procedural safeguards: prior warning, minimum force, identifiable personnel. The Supreme Court's High-Powered Enquiry Committee under Justice R. Subhash Reddy (2026) is examining pellet guns, electric batons and tear gas used on student protestors for proportionality and for whether police wore nameplates [4].
• Institutional accountability: the Second ARC's Fifth Report, "Public Order", urged professional, rights-sensitive crowd management and insulated police accountability [5].

Article 19 thus creates a presumption in favour of the protestor and places the burden of justifying force on the state. The way forward lies in codified national crowd-control and less-lethal-weapon guidelines, mandatory body cameras and nameplates, and empowered Police Complaints Authorities — so that restriction remains reasonable rather than arbitrary. A democracy secures public order best when dissent is policed with restraint, not suppressed by force.